Despite a new book -
We are no closer to learning details
about the Kolvenbach report opposing
Bergoglio's nomination as bishop in 1990
January 5, 2017
A new book about Pope Francis is on the way, one that has already been making a stir, even before its scheduled release on February 26:
> Lost Shepherd: How Pope Francis is Misleading His Flock
The title sounds decidedly critical. But not from prejudice. The author of the book, Philip Lawler, is one of the most authoritative and balanced Catholic writers in the United States. He was editor of
Catholic World Report, the news magazine of Ignatius Press, the publishing house founded by the Jesuit Joseph Fessio, a disciple of Joseph Ratzinger. And today he is the editor of
Catholic World News. He was born and raised in Boston, married and the father of seven children.
In the initial phase of Francis’s pontificate, Lawler did not fail to appreciate its novelties. But now, as it turns out, he has come to see in him
the “lost shepherd” of a flock sent out to wander.
And he has developed this critical judgment on Jorge Mario Bergogio as pope in part through a careful re-examination of Bergoglio as a Jesuit and bishop in Argentina.
Which is exactly what has been done by other biographers of the current pope, both for and against him: to reconstruct his Argentine journey, in order to obtain from this a better understanding of his activity as pope.
One striking example of this revisitation of Bergoglio’s Argentine phase is in the most recently published book about him:
The Dictator Pope, released as an e-book in Italian and in English at the end of last autumn by an anonymous author, likely a native English speaker, who conceals himself under the pseudonym of Marcantonio Colonna.
One of the passages of
The Dictator Pope that has raised the biggest uproar is the one in which the author lifts the veil on the judgment on Bergoglio written in 1991 by the superior general of the Society of Jesus, Peter Hans Kolvenbach (1928-2016) of the Netherlands, in the course of the secret consultations for and against the appointment of Bergoglio as auxiliary bishop of Buenos Aires.
The pseudonymous Marcantonio Colonna writes:
“The text of the report has never been made public, but the following account is given by a priest who had access to it before it disappeared from the Jesuit archive: Father Kolvenbach accused Bergoglio of a series of defects, ranging from habitual use of vulgar language to deviousness, disobedience concealed under a mask of humility, and lack of psychological balance; with a view to his suitability as a future bishop, the report pointed out that he had been a divisive figure as Provincial of his own order.”
Too little and too vague. Beyond doubt, however, is the existence of a judgment on Bergoglio that the Vatican authorities requested from Kolvenbach in view of his appointment as bishop.
Just as beyond doubt is the severe friction that existed between the ordinary Jesuit at the time and his superiors of the Society of Jesus, both in Argentina and in Rome.
Abundant, solid, and concurrent information on this friction is provided by other biographies of Bergoglio, not suspect of preconceived hostilities, because they were written by authors very close to him or were even reviewed by him in the course of their composition.
This latter is the case, in particular, with the boo
Aquel Francisco [That Francis], written by the Argentines Javier Cámara and Sebastián Pfaffen with the pope’s supervision, dedicated precisely to the years of Bergoglio’s greatest isolation within the society of Jesus.
[If the book was devoted to this, why call it 'That Francis'? He certainly was not 'Francis' at the time, nor does the episode recall Francis of Assisi in any way (in fact - it is the very opposite.]
It does not cover up the fact that Jesuits who were opposed to him went so far as to circulate the rumor that Bergoglio had been sent into exile in Córdoba “because he was sick, crazy.”
But
it is completely silent on the judgment against his appointment as bishop written by Jesuit general Kolvenbach, whose name does not appear even once in the more than 300 pages of the book. [Now that's a major omission, or shall we say gloss-over, i.e., cover-up, cosmetic cover-up.]
Nor is there any news of the Kolvenbach report in what is so far the most exhaustive and “friendly” biography of Bergoglio, written by the Englishman Austen Ivereigh
[who has turned out to be one of the most annoying and dishonest of Bergoglidolators]:
> The Great Reformer. Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope
But on the origin and context of that negative judgment of Kolvenbach, the information given by Ivereigh/Bergoglio is extensive and valuable. And it deserves to be reprised here:
Bergoglio himself referred to this friction with his Argentine confreres in the interview he granted to
La Civiltà Cattolica and to other magazines of the Society of Jesus shortly after his election as pope:
“My authoritarian and quick manner of making decisions led me to have serious problems and to be accused of being ultraconservative. But I have never been a right-winger.” [This highlights the problem of using political labels to describe men of the Church as men of the Churhch. Being authoritarian [and making hasty decisions] has nothing to do with one's leanings - they are personal attributes that anyone can have, whatever place he may occupy on the spectrum between ultraconserative-conservative-to-liberal-ultraliberal. But Bergoglio himself thinks that 'ultraconservative' applied to him meant he was being accused of being a 'rightwinger', which he denies emphatically - and which nothing in his record would indicate, anyway, unless you consider his early enthusiasm with Peron. Hhe always emphasizes - and imitates - Peron's populist rhetoric, except that Bergoglio's populist rhetoric always was and continues to be defiantly 'leftist', to keep with the political labelling.]
In Argentina, in effect, the campaign against Bergoglio was led by the Jesuits of the Center for Research and Social Action, CIAS, made up “mostly,” Ivereigh notes, of “older, academic, upper-class” progressives irritated over the success of this Jesuit “from a lower-middle-class background, and not even a doctorate in theology,” who “privileged popular religiosity while neglecting the research centers”: a type of religiosity “very close to the people, to the poor,” but in their judgment “more Peronist than modern.”
[So, what happened to the CIAS Jesuits? Someone should follow up. Have they all eaten crow and have now become full-fledged Bergoglians? Or are there any who continue to oppose him? And at what cost?]
It was not enough to placate them that Bergoglio, in 1979, ended his term as provincial of the Argentine Jesuits. His leadership over a substantial portion of the Society was by no means diminished. On the contrary, Ivereigh writes, “he had more influence by the end of his time of rector than he had had as a provincial.”
But precisely for this reason his opponents became more and more antagonistic. The criticisms of the CIAS and of others made their way to Rome, to the
curia generalizia of the Society of Jesus, where the assistant for Latin America, José Fernández Castañeda, was also hostile to Bergoglio, and evidently they convinced the new superior general, Kolvenbach. Who in fact, in 1986, at the time of choosing the new head of the Argentine province, appointed none other than the candidate of the CIAS, Víctor Zorzín, who immediately took as his right-hand man “one of Bergoglio’s fiercest critics,” Ignacio García-Mata, who succeeded him.
After this came a purge that Ivereigh compares with the “clash between the Peronists and anti-Peronists” of Argentina in the 1950’s, with the difference that now “the ‘
gorilas’ [fanatical anti-Peronists] were in the CIAS, and the ‘pueblo’ was with Bergoglio and the others.” In short: “a cleansing, in which everything associated with the deposed regime was reversed.”
And Bergoglio? In May of that same year of 1986, in agreement with the new provincial, Zorzín, he travelled to Germany, officially for a doctorate on Romano Guardini. But in December of the same year he was already on his way back home, to the rejoicing of his still numerous followers. Who in fact succeeded in electing none other than him as procurator of the Argentine province for a summit at the
curia generalizia of Rome in September of 1987.
The next year it was Kolvenbach who went to Argentina, for a meeting with the provincials of the continent. But he avoided meeting Bergoglio, in spite of the fact that he was staying very near by. Ivereigh writes:
“Over the next two years, the province increasingly polarized and turned in on itself” and Bergoglio “was increasingly blamed for stirring this up.” He cites the minutes of the meetings of the provincial consultors: “In every one of them we spoke about him. It was a constant worry, what we were going to do with this man.” [None of this was really a secret at the time of the 2013 conclave, but the cardinal-electors appeared to have allowed themselves to be sold on the bill of goods presented to them by Bergoglio's Grand Electors, and never bothered to research him. Because two of his worst defects as pope were already obvious in his troubled history with the Jesuits of Argentina - his authoritarianism and his fomenting of division. It is even worse now, of course, because he is the pope - with all the authority and power that he can wield as pope. How could such an inherently divisive figure ever be a symbol of unity for the Church? The record of the past five years clearly shows his divisiveness - a divisiveness and frank division that he has chosen to inflict on the Church.]
In 1990 they exiled Bergoglio to Córdoba, no longer with any position, and they sent his closest confreres abroad. But soon after came the miracle. The archbishop of Buenos Aires, Antonio Quarracino, asked Rome for none other than Bergoglio as his auxiliary bishop. And he got him.
Ivereigh does not mention this. But it is here, in the secret consultations that precede the appointment of every new bishop, that Jesuit superior general Kolvenbach set down in writing his negative judgment on the appointment of Bergoglio. He was not heeded. But there is one episode immediately after the consecration of Bergoglio as bishop, in the summer of 1992, that shows how bitter the discord between the two remains.
While waiting for his new residence to be prepared, Bergoglio was accommodated at the house of the Jesuit curia of Buenos Aires, where in the meantime his archenemy García-Mata had become provincial.
Ivereigh writes: “But it wasn’t an easy relationship. Bergoglio blamed García-Mata for defaming him in a report the provincial had written to Rome - the report was secret, but one of the consultors had informed Bergoglio - while
García-Mata felt threatened by Bergoglio’s popularity among the younger Jesuits.”
[I wonder what Garcia-Mata, if he is still alive, would have to say to that!]
The weeks went by and Bergoglio was for García-Mata an ever more “interfering” presence. Until on July 31, the feast of Saint Ignatius, the provincial hinted that he should leave. “But I’m very comfortable here,” Bergoglio answered.
Ivereigh continues:“If he wanted him out, said Bergoglio, he should inform him formally. So García-Mata wrote to Father Kolvenbach, who backed the provincial, who left the general’s letter in Bergoglio’s room. García-Mata received a written response in return, in which Bergoglio gave the date of his departure.”
Against this background one can understand why from them on, during his many trips to Rome, Bergoglio never set foot in the curia generalizia of the Jesuits, staying instead at the clerical residence on Via della Scrofa, nor did he ever speak with Kolvenbach.
In order to be reconciled with the Society of Jesus, in short, the first Jesuit pope in history had to do nothing less than precisely that, be elected pope.
But today we know about the preceding conflict almost exclusively from his point of view, mediated by his biographer friends.
The point of view of the others, starting with the judgment of his general from a quarter of a century ago, is still to a large extent unknown to us.
Which brings me back to some 'minor' facts in the official Vatican biography of Bergoglio that always bothered me for being inherently dishonest, deliberately approximative and non-informative. I've just looked back to lift the quotes, and it appears that there have been changes since I last looked - but not to provide more information, rather to reduce the episodes described to the least number of words possible, which only raises more questions.
#1: "He graduated as a chemical technician and then chose the path of the priesthood, entering the Diocesan Seminary of Villa Devoto." That somehow implies that he had a degree as a chemical technician - in fact, some early accounts in the media upon his election as pope claimed he had a master's degree in chemistry. All other available sources do say he attended a technical high school in which he trained as a chemical technician, thus getting a 'diploma' for this. And he did work a couple of years as a chemical technician at a food processing plant, and at some point, working as a bouncer and janitor. Good for him.
#2: "In March 1986 he went to Germany to finish his doctoral thesis; his superiors then sent him to the Colegio del Salvador in Buenos Aires and next to the Jesuit Church in the city of Córdoba as spiritual director and confessor." Just 12 words, to imply that he had begun a doctoral thesis in Argentina and only went to Germany to finish it (implying also that he did finish it, even if it doesn't even mention the topic for the thesis). In fact, Wikipedia reproduces in a footnote a news brief from the the Sankt Georgen Graduate School of Philosophy and Theology in Frankfurt, Germany, published March 14, 2013, which says (my translation): "(He) spent a few months in Sankt Georgen in order to get advice from some professors for a dissertation project. He did not arrive at any decision in Sankt Georgen".
Of course, we have since learned from him and his biographers that he meant to write a dissertation on Romano Guardini, and he says his crazy four postulates (Time is greater than space", etc) come from the draft of his dissertation. So be it. But in fact, Bergoglio's entire education and pre-bishop existence are carefully glossed over and skimmed and/or minimally informative in the Vatican biography, that one has to check out Wikipedia for more facts (and I make sure that Wikipedia documents its sources for these facts).
#3: Immediately following that last sentence about going to Cordoba: "It was Cardinal Antonio Quarracino, Archbishop of Buenos Aires, who wanted him as a close collaborator." Why, and on what basis, as I have asked before.
To limit myself to the popes in my lifetime, I have not seen the Vatican biographies of Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI glossed over in any way at all. There was no need to.
BTW, I must confess I have not worked up enough courage to post 'the' big news about the Emeritus Pope as we rang in 2018. You may read all about in Magister's blog.
http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2018/01/02/ratzinger-rehabilitates-muller-but-the-pope-emeritus-himself-is-being-hit-with-accusations-of-heresy/
I understand the praises for Cardinal Mueller - after all Benedict XVI's letter was meant to be the Foreword to a book of tributes to the cardinal on his 70th birthday. He did choose him to be the editor of his Opera Omnia (not that it meant Mueller himself would, could or did edit any of the texts - Benedict himself did all that) and then to be prefect of the CDF. So there's friendship as well as professional esteem there.
What galls me is the line “You defended the clear traditions of the faith, but in the spirit of Pope Francis you also sought to understand how they can be lived today.” Because a) it is not true that Mueller has 'defended the clear traditions of the faith' - he has flipped and flopped countless times in his declarations; and b) 'in the spirit of Pope Francis, you sought to understand how they can be lived today'??? [(a) would seem to be for Mueller's flips, and (b) for his flops. Did this sentence have to be there at all? What reason is there to invoke Francis at all, and for the reason given "to understand how they can be lived today", which sort of excuses all the rhetorical acrobatics resorted to by Bergoglio and his supporters to justify the outrages contained in AL.
As for the attack on Joseph Ratzinger by Radaelli and Livi for his 1968 INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTIANITY, why did they wait 50 years to suddenly bring this up? Did they just read it now? Not one word from them about this when he was Pope! Not one word when he made his December 2005 address on the 'hermeneutic of continuity'. Not one word from them when he made that remarkable off-the-cuff presetnation on Vatican-II to the priests of Rome just a few days before he stepped down as pope!
Beatrice on her site quotes a French observer of Church affairs, Denis Crouan, president of the Association Pro Liturgia (my translation):
In a recently published book, Mons. [Antonio] Livi, dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Pontifical Lateran University, claims that Joseph Ratzinger and his theology contributed notably to 'the rise to power' of what Livi calls "modernist theology and its evident heretical drift" which, since Vatican II, has more and more established itself in seminaries...
It would seem that Mons. Livi is not really au courant with what is happening in the seminaries. One cannot see how Ratzinger could have influenced a 'modernist theology' in the seminaries, considering that - at least in France - seminarians have been strongly advised from reading his works since he is considered 'a dangerous crypto-traditionalist whose mind is closed to the evolution of the post-conciliar Church'.
Beatrice also found an impromptu but eloquent essay-tribute to Benedict XVI from a certain Tralcio [in Italian it means 'shoot' as in a vine, so I suppose he is saying he is a shoot from the Benedettian vine] in the comboxes of the site chiesaepostconcilio where a lively discussion has been going on relative to the Radelli-Livi attack on Ratzinger. Here is my translation (with some contextual additions to the text:
Pope Benedict ‘stepped aside’.
He has not disappeared, neither physically nor canonically.
He was pope, and he annoyed quite a few. He is still around, and hestill annoys those who were annoyed with him to begin with.
Benedict XVI is a 90-year-old man who took part in the [Second Vatican Council] and shared its spirit [the genuine spirit of the ‘Council of fact’ and not the ‘Council of the media’, and certainly not the much-vaunted progressivist ‘spirit of Vatican II’] and after that, he lived it while trying to reduce all of its tragic and ruinous drift from orthodoxy. He is a man who grasped the very roots of the error that is ecclesial modernism.
To argue at this point about) [for the Church] is futile.
The tragedy of the ecclesial disaster in the last few decades was seen, recognized and denounced by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI more than everyone else. [Something else that Radaelli and Livi have clearly forgotten is that THE RATZINGER REPORT in 1985 was his critique of how influential progressivists in the Church had managed to subvert Vatican II in 20 years, and that John Paul II had convoked an extraordinary synod that year precisely to assess and correct the ‘reception’ of Vatican II throughout the Catholic world, but especially among men of the Church themselves.]
And that is why the paladins of the ‘new church’ have focused their attacks on him, firmly opposing any restraints and indeed eager to get back as much of their own ground. And those who had earlier declared themselves ‘free’ and ‘adult’ Catholics now cry out and crackle with obedience.
‘Dominus Iesus’ which he wrote as Prefect of the CDF, was like a lighthouse in a storm. His attempt to restore dignity to the liturgy, indeed restoring the Vetus Ordo itself, and his efforts to rescue the Gospel from the mess created by modern exegetes were lifeboats in the roiling currents of the post-Vatican II innnovations. He tried it with the proper translation of ‘pro multis’, but was ignored by some. [Thank God for the English-speaking countries which promptly stood by the right translation – ‘for many’ and not ‘for all’.] He tried to make the Church give up any excuse for ‘filth’ [generated by men of the Church themselves]. He even showed respect to those who tried to sabotage him as pope.
Then, he stepped aside, still dressed in white.
He said he did so freely, voluntarily; but he never said (and anyone who paid attention would have seen that clearly) that he had not been constrained by some factors. [Yes, he was, and he said so - by his age and increasing infirmity. I hate to see insinuations of other, perhaps sinister external constraints attributed to him in an essay that is clearly meant as a tribute.] Not to exaggerate by comparison, even Jesus said he was carrying out the will of the Father freely, but this did not mean that the actions of three powers (Rome, Herod and the Sanhedrin) and a traitor from his own circle, did not objectively lead to his death.
Benedict XVI has been capable of true humility amid peacocks, prima donnas and popinjays.
He could have made mistakes when he was younger, but he was certainly not aided very much inside the Church.
Outside the Church, with his denunciation of the dictatorship of relativism and his firm insistence on Truth, he was much hated and feared. But as Bishop of Rome, one of the secular universities of Rome, La Sapienza [the one founded by a pope], closed its doors to him.
Yet now, those who seek the applause of the world, eschew the language of truth that Benedict XVI spoke.
Today, many are indeed unworthy of even meeting the emeritus Pope.
And what does he do? He waits. He hopes in the Lord. He will not be confused. Let us hope the same for us.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 06/01/2018 04:57]